2E - Political and religious divisions: the attitude and actions of Charles I
Military defeat left Charles I without an army but still at the centre of attempts to settle the kingdoms. Examine the rival proposals of Parliament, the army and the Scots, and explain why bargaining failed to create a government that the participants could trust.
A defeated king with bargaining power
Most of Charles's opponents initially wanted a settlement with a king, rather than the abolition of monarchy. They had fought to restrain powers they considered unlawful and to protect Parliament and Protestant religion. A royal agreement could give a reconstructed government familiar authority and reduce the danger of renewed resistance. Charles's surrender to the Scots in May 1646 therefore ended the First Civil War without resolving its constitutional causes.
Charles believed that kingship carried a duty to preserve powers and institutions entrusted to him. He was especially reluctant to abandon episcopacy, the government of the Church through bishops, or permanently surrender control of armed forces. This was more than personal stubbornness: he regarded concessions as matters affecting his conscience and the rights of future monarchs. Nevertheless, believing his own position legitimate did not make his negotiating behaviour trustworthy to his opponents.
Charles could exploit the fact that the victorious coalition disagreed about religion and the army. He delayed decisions, dealt with competing groups and expected each to need his agreement more than he needed theirs. Such tactics bought time and kept alternatives open. They also encouraged negotiators to doubt whether any concession would survive once he regained freedom. In January 1647 the Scots agreed to withdraw and transfer him to parliamentary custody after a financial settlement with Parliament. That transfer changed his guards, not the unresolved problem of consent.
Divisions among the victors
The categories Presbyterian and Independent describe important tendencies, rather than two perfectly disciplined political parties. Presbyterian MPs generally favoured a national Church with organised discipline and feared sectarian religion and the army's independence. Leading Independents defended wider freedom for godly Protestant congregations and resisted a settlement that handed their religious opponents control of the victorious soldiers. Individuals could change alliances, and opinions about religion, military command and negotiation did not always coincide.
The Scots wanted protection for their own settlement and the extension of Presbyterianism in England. The New Model Army wanted its arrears, indemnity and religious concerns addressed before disbandment. Within the army, Ireton and Cromwell initially looked for accommodation with the king, whereas Leveller supporters wanted stronger guarantees against any arbitrary government. London merchants and citizens also differed: some supported the army, while others associated its continuing presence with high taxes, economic disruption and religious danger.
These divisions gave Charles opportunities, but they also made an agreement harder to enforce. A bargain acceptable to Presbyterian MPs might threaten Independents; a tolerant army settlement could alarm Scottish churchmen. The problem was not simply producing terms on paper. A settlement needed sufficient agreement among those who could vote money, enforce law and command soldiers.
Rival terms for a settlement
The Newcastle Propositions of 1646 demanded extensive safeguards against a revival of royal power. Charles was to accept the Covenant and Presbyterian Church arrangements, while Parliament would control the militia for twenty years. The proposal also provided for punishment of leading Royalists. These demands reflected fear that the king could resume the war; to Charles they threatened essential aspects of kingship and the Church.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account